Key
developments since May 2001: There is increasing information about the
considerable quantities of unexploded ordnance, including mines, from the Second
World War and later Soviet occupation uncovered each year. Hungary has a
landmine alternative under development. Hungary has not confirmed whether it
has completed the destruction of its UKA-63 antivehicle mines with tilt rod
fuzes, which function like antipersonnel mines.
MINE BAN POLICY
The Republic of Hungary signed the Mine Ban Treaty
on 3 December 1997 and ratified it on 6 April 1998, becoming a State Party on 1
March 1999. National legislation implementing the Mine Ban Treaty and
criminalizing violations entered into force on 7 March
1998.[1]
Hungary attended the Third Meeting of States Parties in September 2001 in
Managua, Nicaragua, where it associated itself with the statement delivered by
Belgium on behalf of the European Union. Hungary also participated in the
intersessional Standing Committee meetings in January and May
2002.[2]
The annual Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 transparency report was submitted on 24
April 2002. Previous Article 7 Reports were submitted on 1 October 1999, 25
April 2000, and 30 April
2001.[3] Hungary transmitted an
annual report on antipersonnel landmines for 2001 to the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE).[4] On 29 November 2001,
Hungary cosponsored and voted for United Nations General Assembly Resolution
56/24M in support of the Mine Ban Treaty.
On the issue of joint military operations and exercises with non-States
Parties, in May 2001, the Ministry of Defense repeated a previous statement
that: “Hungarian soldiers are not allowed to use antipersonnel mines
abroad during NATO army exercises, and foreign soldiers are not allowed to use
antipersonnel mines in Hungary during NATO army
exercises.”[5] The
Hungarian Army took part in “63 NATO-NATO/PFP-PFP, and 22 bilateral and
multilateral army exercises and programs” at home and abroad in
2001.[6]
Hungary is a State Party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and
its Amended Protocol II. Hungary attended the Third Annual Conference to
Amended Protocol II and the Second CCW Review Conference in December 2001.
Hungary associated itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European
Union by Belgium. The annual report required by Article 13 of Amended Protocol
II was presented at the annual conference. At the Second CCW Review Conference,
Hungary supported the creation of a group of governmental experts to look at the
issue of explosive remnants of war, and also co-sponsored the US-Danish proposal
on antivehicle mines.[7]
Previously, a regional expert meeting on explosive remnants of war was held
by the local office of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and
hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in Budapest, on 21-22 June
2001.[8] This was attended by
60-70 participants from 23 States in Central and Eastern Europe and concerned
NGOs. Hungary was represented by 10-15 experts from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the Institute of Military
Technology.[9]
Hungary also took part in the regional seminar “Understanding the
Ottawa Convention” held in Poland on 18-19 June 2001. In October 2001,
Hungary attended a workshop on regional mine action that was organized by the
NATO Partnership for Peace and held in Athens.
The Landmine Monitor Report 2001 report on Hungary was published in
Hungarian in the military technology journal of the Hungarian Association of the
Art of War.[10] Previous
Landmine Monitor reports on Hungary have also been published locally. In
November 2000, and again in January 2001, the Landmine Monitor researcher
requested that issues raised in the reports be discussed by three Boards of the
Hungarian Parliament (Foreign Affairs, Defense, and the Human Rights, Minorities
and Religion Board). On the advice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the
first two Boards declined to consider the report, but the third Board did
consider it. László Deák (Ministry of Foreign Affairs),
Colonel József Tián (Ministry of Defense) and the Landmine Monitor
researcher took part in the Board’s hearing on 23 May 2001. The hearing
considered the researcher’s findings on MON type mines, the 1,500 GYATA-64
mines retained for permitted purposes, the POMZ-2 mines already destroyed, and
the mined area at Nagybajom-Mesztegnyő, and considered the views of the
authorities on these issues. Mr. Deák told the Board that “since
Hungary fulfilled her national level obligations included in the Ottawa Treaty
... we do not think that there are any open questions regarding the execution of
the treaty that would be justified to discuss in
public.”[11] He added
that “for the government’s part, we have no aversion to so-called
civilian oversight of the implementation of an international
treaty.”[12] The Board
closed the hearing without passing a resolution or proposition.
PRODUCTION, TRANSFER, AND STOCKPILE DESTRUCTION
Hungary stated in 1995 that it no longer produced
or exported antipersonnel mines and has previously reported that it completed
destruction of its stockpile of antipersonnel mines on 29 June
1999.[13] The April 2002
Article 7 Report clarifies that the entire stock of POMZ-2 mines (16,955) was
destroyed by 16 June 1999.[14]
There remains conflicting information about when some other types of mines (M-49
and M-62) were destroyed.
Hungary’s Article 7 Reports provided little information on destruction
methods, and safety and environmental standards, during stockpile destruction at
the MWS site.[15] The full
environmental impact report on the site, including mine production and stockpile
destruction, due by 31 August 2001, is now expected by September 2002. The
latest estimate is that complete cleaning may cost HUF1.5 billion
(US$5,408,913).[16]
Hungary initially reported that 1,500 GYATA-64 mines would be retained under
Article 3 of the Mine Ban
Treaty.[17] Then the April 2001
Article 7 Report noted a “change in policy,” with the suggestion
that they would be destroyed by the end of
2001.[18] Now the April 2002
Article 7 Report states the mines will be retained for development of demining
techniques.[19]
In February 2002, the Mechanical Works Special PLC in
Törökbálint, where these mines are stored, requested the
Technology Bureau of the Hungarian Army to state its plans for these mines. MWS
added that it could either return the mines to the competent authority or
disassemble the whole quantity within an eight-hour shift, if
instructed.[20] The Ministry of
Affairs has agreed to consider civil participation in inspecting the 1,500
GYATA-64 mines.[21]
In addition, 6,548 inert training mines of the same type are stored at three
training centers and the Ministry of Defense site at
Budapest-Háros.[22]
While not mandatory under Article 7, the ICBL has asked States Parties to
report on steps taken to ensure that directional fragmentation mines cannot be
used in victim-activated (i.e., tripwire) mode, as use in victim-activation mode
would constitute a violation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Hungary has not reported
on its MON directional fragmentation mines or possible
modifications.[23] The Ministry
of Foreign Affairs’s most recent statement on the issue says that
“the MON-50, MON-100, and MON-200 type antipersonnel mines possessed by
the Hungarian Army are directed splinter mines, and belonging to that type, they
do not fall in the scope of the prohibitory orders of the Ottawa Treaty,
therefore Hungary as a State Party is not obliged by international law to report
them.”[24]
The UKA-63 antivehicle mine with tilt rod fuze remains a matter of concern,
since it functions like an antipersonnel mine. Hungary previously indicated in
March 2000 that it had destroyed half its inventory of UKA-63s, and would
destroy the remaining 100,000 by March 2002. No confirmation of this has been
received, and no mention is made in the CCW Article 13 Report of 29 November
2001 or the Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report of 30 April 2002.
At the parliamentary board’s hearing in May 2001 the Ministry of
Defense representative repeated a previous statement that “there are no
antipersonnel mines stockpiled at the Taszár base, used by the
USA.”[25] Since the
military operations started in Afghanistan “the international forces has
not increased their presence in Hungary, there has not been any growth in
movements at Taszár, there are no special units of the NATO or the USA
there.”[26] The Ministry
of Defense has agreed to check if the leasing agreements for foreign use of
Hungarian military ranges prohibit mine
use.[27]
MINE ACTION FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE
In 2001, Hungary contributed HUF15 million
(US$54,089) to the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Trust Fund established for
the destruction of antipersonnel mines in Ukraine, and HUF10 million (US$36,059)
to the PfP Moldovan project.[28]
There have been no developments in the creation of a “regional mine
destruction center” at Nyírtelek, as proposed by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in 2000 and at a seminar on the PFM mine in February 2001.
The Ministry states that Hungary does not now want to destroy foreign mines in
her territory (including the Ukrainian stockpile) and there are no negotiations
ongoing.[29]
Hungary has a seven-person mine clearance unit in Georgia as part of
UNOMIG.[30] The Hungarian
military contingent in Kosovo includes a four-person bomb disposal squad under
KFOR. Soldiers of this unit attend weekly mine instruction
drills.[31] There is a
four-person bomb-disposal squad within the Hungarian SFOR technical contingent
in Croatia. A practice area was established in the Hungarian camp, so that
soldiers can familiarize themselves with
landmines.[32]
Hungary took part in the international donor conference held in Zagreb,
Croatia, on 25 September 2001. Hungary declared its readiness to help in
demining, but there were no bilateral
discussions.[33]
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Hungary is a member of NATO and regularly takes
part in the twice-yearly meetings of its military technology committee (Army
Armaments Group Landgroup 9 on Battlefield Engineering). Hungary participates
in the Antipersonnel Landmine Alternative project (APL-A) of this committee with
“above average” work and activity, according to Hungary’s
representative. At the committee’s session in Budapest on 27-28 September
2001, Hungary reported on its development of a three-stage defensive system to
replace antipersonnel mines. The first stage consists of a sensor-based
signaling system of combined light, smoke, and sound emitting charges. The
second stage is a “quickly deployable wire-entanglement” and the
third is a “directed splinter charge.” This was described as a
“territory defense antipersonnel weapon,” and “similar to MON
type mines,” but with a more modern detonator.
The “special splinter grenade” was described as “quickly
and easily deployable and removable.” It “can be separately
activated and deactivated” and “is set into operation by remote
control.” It could be used against tanks and infantry as well as
personnel. It was said to cost ten times more than antipersonnel mines, and
would not be left in the battlefield if only because of its price. At the same
time, this new weapon was said to be more “humanitarian, since it
endangers only the fighting parties.” Development is in
progress.[34]
LANDMINE PROBLEM AND MINE/UXO CLEARANCE
Hungary has reported officially that “there
have been no identified or suspected minefields” and therefore no mine
clearance programs in
Hungary.[35] In March 2001, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that: “According to available
documentation, there are no mined areas subject to point 1c of Article 7 of the
Treaty in Hungary.”[36]
However, there is increasing information about areas contaminated by mines and
UXO.
At the Second CCW Review Conference in December 2001, Lieutenant Zsolt Nemes
presented a report by the 1st Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
Battalion of the Hungarian
Army.[37] The battalion is
responsible for all EOD in Hungary, and undergoes two trainings each year. The
report indicated there are 2,600-2,800 calls per year requesting the clearance
of UXO. The report included “mortars, shells, mines and bombs” in
its definition of UXO.
Since World War II, the battalion has destroyed 20 million mines and UXO, and
20,000 tons of other ammunition and explosives, clearing an area of 10 square
kilometers. From 1945 to 1957, most UXO were destroyed and minefields cleared;
since 1957, the battalion has dealt with newly-discovered mines and UXO.
Lieutenant Nemes identified the most contaminated areas as Pest, Fejer,
Komarom-Eszetgom, Veszprem, Gvor, and Vas, resulting from World War II and later
Soviet occupation.[38]
According to the Ministry of Defense, the First Bomb-disposal and Battleship
Regiment of the Hungarian Army (HTHE) destroyed 141,180 explosive items in 2001,
including 103 bombs, 282 mines, 1,197 mine-grenades, 1,275 hand-grenades, 5,074
artillery missiles, and more than 100,000 pieces of infantry ammunition. The
bomb-disposal experts visited 2,836 sites, including 929 urgent
cases.[39] Between 1 January
and 24 March 2002, there were 477
calls.[40] In 2000,
bomb-disposal experts turned out 2,775 times to deal with explosives, including
977 urgent cases. They destroyed 124,816 pieces of
explosives.[41]
Captain Lajos Posta, Head of Reconnaissance Department, reported that in 2001
a total of 247 mines were found and destroyed in Hungary (95.2 percent were
Soviet-made, 1.6 percent Hungarian, 3.2 percent German World War II mines).
This included 39 antipersonnel mines, 15 of which were live mines, found near
the Croatian border, on its Hungarian side, in former Soviet military areas, in
a World War II battlefield in the Pilis Hills, and in the attic of a
privately-owned house. Also included in the total were 25 live antivehicle
mines. Most were found in former Soviet military
areas.[42]
In 2001, the investigation of mine/UXO contamination of Lake Balaton
continued. In the Pilis hills, an October 2001 excavation of the WWII Soviet
defense trenches showed that Soviet troops created a minefield of two lines of
POMZ tripwire mines.[43] It was
reported in 2001 that there may be “still about 100-120 WWII mines in the
Hungarian section of river Danube, mostly in the environs of the capital ...
these mines might cause harm only if they are poked. The Danube has probably
covered these mines with a thick layer of river gravel and
silt.”[44]
In the State-owned woods around Nagybajom and Marcali, the remains of
exploded munitions and unexploded mines and other munitions dating from World
War II “caused serious problems in the last year.” Three lumber
projects had to be stopped in recent years for these
reasons.[45] Part of the
contaminated area is in the Boronka Tájvédelmi Körzet (BTK -
Boronka Landscape Protection Area) owned by the Somogy
Természetvédelmi Szervezet (Somogy Nature Reserve Organization).
The forestry director said that “there have not been any explosions for
decades.”[46] The area
“is not fenced, and there are no notice-boards of possible
danger.”[47] The Marcali
Forestry has submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and Country Development an
application each year in recent years for explosive clearance, but without any
agreement being concluded.[48]
Army experts describe the Mesztegnyő area as “the single mined
area remaining from World War
II.”[49] Battlefield
researchers of the Faculty of History of War of the Zrínyi Miklós
University of National Defense plan to start explorations in the area in
2002.[50] Recently, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed support for mine/UXO clearance of the
Nagybajom-Mesztegnyő
area.[51]
Croatian firms have conducted clearance in a number of areas near the
Hungarian border in 2001 and
2002.[52] It has been reported
that,“demining of the whole borderline will be executed in
2002.”[53] There is said
to be good cooperation between the Hungarian and Croatian border guard
authorities, and joint inspection of demined areas is carried
out.[54]
LANDMINE/UXO CASUALTIES
The most recent Amended Protocol II Article 13
Report referred to a “lack of victims with specifically mine-related
injuries.”[55] However,
there have been casualties from UXO, and it is not clear how mine and UXO
casualties are distinguished. In December 2001, Hungary distributed a report to
the CCW, which stated that in the last 50 years, 300 EOD personnel had been
killed. Lt. Nemes also remarked during a noontime presentation that there were
civilian casualties during 2001, and an average of two to three deaths per year,
“mainly because people mishandle what they find.” No more details
were given.[56]
[1] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p.
658. [2] At all these meetings, it was
represented by László Szűcs, Counselor in the Department for
Security Policy and Disarmament, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Szűcs
succeeded László Deák as Hungary’s representative at
antipersonnel mine conferences in August
2001. [3] Article 7 Reports, submitted
on 1 October 1999 for the period 1 March-27 August 1999; submitted on 25 April
2000 for the period 27 August 1999-25 April 2000; submitted on 30 April 2001 for
the period 1 May 2000-30 April 2001; and submitted on 24 April 2002 for the
period 1 May 2001-30 April 2002. [4]
Report of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Hungary to the OSCE for
2001. [5] Statement by Col.
József Tián, Ministry of Defense, minutes of the hearing on
antipersonnel mines held by the Human Rights, Minorities and Religion Board of
the Hungarian Parliament, Budapest, 23 May 2001, p. 5. See also Landmine
Monitor Report 2001, pp. 714-715. [6]
Speech by General Lajos Fodor, Chief of the General Staff of the Hungarian Army,
at the General Staff meeting, 7 March 2002, Magyar Honvéd, (weekly
magazine of the Ministry of Defense), 15 March 2002, supplement, p.
11. [7] Letter from György Balogh,
Security Policy and Arms Control Department (FEBIFO), Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 2 April 2002. [8]
“Nemzetközi konferencia a háborús
fegyverekről,” (“International conference on weapons of
war”), Budapest, Magyar Távirati Iroda (MTI, Hungarian News
Agency), 20 June 2001. [9] Letter from
Lt. Zsolt Nemes, First Bomb-disposal and Battleship Regiment of the Hungarian
Army (MH HTHE), 13 March 2002. [10] Dr.
Tamás Csapody, “A gyalogsági aknák
Magyarországon” (“Landmines in Hungary”), Műszaki
Katonai Közlöny (Military Technical Journal), Technical Section of the
Hungarian Association of the Art of War, No. 1, (special edition) 2002, pp.
3-35. [11] Official minutes of the
session held on 23 May 2001 by the Human Rights, Minority, and Religion Board of
the Hungarian Parliament, pp. 6-7 (unofficial
translation). [12] Ibid., p. 9
(unofficial translation). [13] See
Landmine Monitor Report 1999, Landmine Monitor Report 2000 and Landmine Monitor
Report 2001. [14] Article 7 Report, Form
G, 24 April 2002. [15] On 11 December
2000, the regional environmental protection body found that “the
geological medium is obviously contaminated by gunpowder” and MWS was
reported as admitting that, “significant and only partly known pollution
had been caused by the military and industrial manufacturing of
explosives.” Resolution of the Environmental Conservation for Middle
Danube Basin on Binding MW Special PLC to Implement a Comprehensive
Environmental Investigation of its Plant in Törökbálint,
Budapest, 15 December 2000, p. 3. [16]
Letters from MMS (MWS) to the Environmental Conservation for Middle Danube
Basin, 18 //December 2001 and 29 January 2002, and letter to Landmine Monitor
researcher from Roland Spitz, authorized supervisor, Environmental Conservation
for Middle Danube Basin, 7 February 2002. Exchange rate at 24 March 2002:
HUF277.32 = US$1. [17] Article 7 Report,
1 October 1999. [18] Article 7 Report,
Form D, 30 April 2001. [19] Article 7
Reports, Form D, 30 April 2001 and 24 April
2002. [20] Letter from Dr.
László Molnár, deputy director-general, Mechanical Works
Special PLC (MMS), 12 February
2002. [21] Email from
László Szűcs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27 March 2002.
The Landmine Monitor researcher’s initial request to witness the transfer
or destruction of these mines was refused. Letter from Árpád
Adorján, Procurement and Marketing Director, Procurement and Security
Investment Office, Hungarian Army, on behalf of Dr. János
Kárász, deputy under-secretary, 28 February 2002, and letter from
Tamás Ráth, director-general, Technology Bureau, Hungarian Army,
(Rec. num: 154/2002), 18 February
2002. [22] Letter from Major
László Kiss, Deputy Manager, Technical Service and Support Center
of the Hungarian Army, Budapest-Háros, 8 March 2001, and email from
László Szűcs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 June
2002. [23] See Landmine Monitor Report
2000, pp. 660-661, and Landmine Monitor Report 2001, p.
713. [24] Letter from Zoltán
Pecze, Deputy Head of the Arms Control and Security Policy Department, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Rec. num. 2518/2001, 12 March
2001. [25] Statement by Col.
József Tián, Ministry of Defense, minutes of the hearing on
antipersonnel mines held by the Human Rights, Minorities and Religion Board of
the Hungarian Parliament, Budapest, 23 May 2001, p.
5. [26] Brig. János Isaszegi,
commander of the Interservice Operational Centre, Hungarian Army,
“Egyeztetés a tájékoztatásról,”
(“Agreement on giving information”), MTI, 12 October
2001. [27] Email from
László Szűcs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27 March
2002. [28] Report of the Hungarian
Mission to the OSCE, (undated), and email from László Szűcs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 20 March 2002.
[29] Letter from László
Szűcs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 February 2002; see also Landmine
Monitor Report 2000, p. 714. [30]
Editorial, "Magyar rendfenntartók Boszniában" (Hungarian
peace-keeping forces in Bosnia', Népszabadság (daily newspaper), 7
March 2002, p. 3, and Szurmay Zoltán, "Aknák között a
megbecsülésért" ('Striving for esteem among landmines'),
Magyar Honvéd (weekly magazine of the Ministry of Defense), 31 August
2001, p. 4. [31] Telephone interview
with Lt. Col. Árpád Korpás, commander, Hungarian KFOR unit,
5 February 2002. [32] Telephone
interview with Col. József Tián, commander of the Hungarian SFOR
technical contingent, 5 February 2002; Col. Tián, previously the MoD
representative, was appointed to the SFOR position on 1 July
2001. [33] Lajos Bencze,
“Tíz évig tartó aknamentesítés
Horvátországban” (“Demining Croatia in the next ten
years”), MTI, Zagreb, 25 September 2001; Hungary was represented by
László Szűcs, Security Policy and Arms Control Department,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [34] Letter
from Col. István Budai, head of Technical Engineering Branch of
Logistics, General Management of Hungarian Defense Forces, 18 February 2002.
Col. Budai is Hungary’s representative on the NATO military technology
committee. [35] Amended Protocol II
Article 13 Report, Form B, 29 November
2001. [36] Letter from Zoltán
Pecze, Deputy Head of Department, Arms Control and Security Policy Department,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (Rec. num. 2518/2001), Budapest, 12 March
2001. [37] “Hungarian Army 1st EOD
Battalion, 21-22 June 2001,” Report presented at the Second CCW Review
Conference, Geneva, 11-21 December
2001. [38] Ibid., and Landmine Monitor
notes. [39] Z. T., “A
tűzszerészek statisztikája” (“Statistics for
bomb-disposal experts”), Magyar Honvéd, (weekly magazine of the
Ministry of Defense), 25 January 2002, p. 5. In 2001, HTHE became the legal
successor of the First Bomb-disposal and Mine-searcher Battalion
(HTAZ). [40] “Telefax
rovat,” (“telefax column”), Magyar Honvéd (weekly
magazine of the Ministry of Defense), 29 March 2002, p.
5. [41] László Szűcs,
“Kétezer-nyolcszáz bejelentés,” (“Two
thousand eight hundred calls”), Magyar Honvéd (weekly magazine of
the Ministry of Defense), 2 February 2001, p.
5. [42] Letter from Capt. Lajos Posta,
head of Reconnaissance Department, First Bomb-disposal and Battleship Regiment
of the Hungarian Army (MH HTHE), Budapest, 20 February
2002. [43] Dr. Lajos Négyesi,
lecturer of the Faculty of History of War, Zrínyi Miklós
University of National Defense, “A pilisi német
áttörés” (“German breakthrough in Pilis”),
6-14 January 1945; Dr. Lajos Négyesi,
“Csatatérkutatás a Pilisben” (“Battlefield
research in the Pilis”), 26-28 October 2001; and telephone interview with
Dr. Lajos Négyesi, 25 February
2002. [44] Lt. Col. Hubert
István, commander of the Danube Fleet of the Hungarian Army,
Zoltán Haszán, László Rab, “Elbocsátott
flottilla” (“Dismissed fleet”), Népszabadság
(Hungarian daily newspaper), 26 May 2001, p.
22. [45] Telephone interview with
István Borosán, director of the Marcali Forestry, Forestry and
Timber Industry PLC, Somogy County (SEFAG Rt.), 28 March 2002.
[46]
Ibid. [47] József Takács,
director of Nagybajom Forestry. SEFAG Rt., and József Fehér,
“Akik minden nap a halálba indultak,” (“Those who every
day started out for death”), Marcali Helytörténeti
Füzetek (Booklets on the Local History of Marcali) No. 24, 2002, p.
28. [48] Telephone interview with Dr.
Gyula Jákó, retired colonel of the Hungarian Army, director of
POLIGON 22 Industrial and Trade Service Provider Ltd, 28 March
2002. [49] Col. József
Tián, Ministry of Defense, minutes of the hearing by the Human Rights,
Minorities and Religion Board of the Hungarian Parliament, 23 May 2001, p.
4. [50] Email from Dr. Lajos
Négyesi, lecturer of the Faculty of History of War of the Zrínyi
Miklós University of National Defense, 13 March
2002. [51] Email from
László Szűcs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27 March 2002, and
letter from Dr. Ferenc Gazdag, Head of the Arms Control and Security Policy
Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Budapest, 2 April
2002. [52] Protocol of the Delegation of
the Hungarian Local Joint Commission of the Hungarian Republic. Border section
3. Pécs, 2001. Documents No. 1, 2, 3, received from the Border Guard
Management of Pécs, Ministry of the
Interior. [53] Delegation of the
Hungarian Local Joint Commission of the Hungarian Republic. Border section 3.
Discussion No. II, held on 7 December 2001, Pécs. Document No. 5,
received from the Border Guard Management of Pécs, Ministry of the
Interior. [54] Telephone interview with
Lt.-Col. Pál Ancsin, Border Guard Management of Pécs, Ministry of
the Interior, 5 February 2002. [55]
Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form B, 29 November
2001. [56] “Hungarian Army 1st EOD
Battalion, 21-22 June 2001,” Report presented at the Second CCW Review
Conference, Geneva, 11-21 December 2001, and Landmine Monitor
notes.
About Us
Our Research Products
